What is the difference between using esti + an adjective and using esti + an adverb?

I.E. Estu malfrue. and Estu malfrua. seem to mean the same thing.

verevie:What is the difference between using esti + an adjective and using esti + an adverb?

I.E. Estu malfrue. and Estu malfrua. seem to mean the same thing.

Adverbs effect adjectives and verbs, while adjectives only effect nouns. Therefore Estu malfrue is the correct formation.

This is a classic example of the phenomenon that caused me to hate Esperanto. It is what I call “syntactic hijacking” - where the language is determined by the syntax rather than the semantics ( another case is the special use of -n after a preposition ).

First a quick grammatical point - “esti” is not a verb, it is a copula.

I see the sentence “Estu malfrue” as a contraction of “Vi estu malfrue”, so the malfrue modifies vi ( a pronoun ) and so should be an adjective.

You could have “Vi devos alveni malfrue” in which case it does modify a verb.

As “malfrue” can apply to a verb it is not a particularly clear example, consider something like “estu forte”.

A similar argument applies to “Estas varme”. The “varme” effectively refers to the weather rather than to some abstract sense of ‘being’, so you should have “[La vetero] estas varma”.

@ rlsinclair:

I had the same sentiments, but for some crazy reason I think the common practice is that if it's just "esti" alone, you use an adverb. I can't remember though, and I honestly never try that hard to remember, I just do what seems natural when it comes to "esti" by itself.

And I believe that despite being a copula, "esti", like in many Indo-European languages, still acts like a verb in many cases not in purpose but in form, which might contribute to the reason why -e is used in "esti (describing word)".

Of course, it's possible that in "esti (describing word)", it could be saying something like "there is something, in a (describing word) manner". Anyway, the idea of adverbs and adjectives and nouns and verbs and subjects and objects are very fuzzy. In a way, indirect objects could be considered a special form of adverbs, and subjects could be considered adverbs of verbal origination. So, all in all, it's all too crazy to worry about for me from a philosophical P.O.V..

rlsinclair:
A similar argument applies to “Estas varme”. The “varme” effectively refers to the weather rather than to some abstract sense of ‘being’, so you should have “[La vetero] estas varma”.

It must not always be the weather, it can be warm because of other reasons. Therefore you say estas varme if you don't know the reason or if you don't want to mention it.
If you know it's the weather you say la vetero estas varma. What's the problem here? I think the rule is clear, you only use an adjektive if there is a noun, everywhere else you use an adverb.

Bertilo recommends to consider esti as a verb (almost) without a proper meaning. Therefore it makes no sence to describe it by an adverb. It's used to construct sentences, mainly to define the tense.
Especially in this example (estas varme) esti only defines the time, you could also say varmas instead.

It is what I call “syntactic hijacking” - where the language is determined by the syntax rather than the semantics

I'm really glad that the language is determined by it's syntax, and not by semantics, otherwise you would have to know the meaning of something you read before you read it.

horsto:

It is what I call “syntactic hijacking” - where the language is determined by the syntax rather than the semantics

I'm really glad that the language is determined by it's syntax, and not by semantics, otherwise you would have to know the meaning of something you read before you read it.

Technically, you still do need to know the meaning of something before you read it, so it's rather even in being driven by both syntax and semantics. In fact, the syntax is irremovable from any language, since syntax means the way words are put together. Even if a language had a single exclamation for every possible situation it needed to describe, like an animal repetoire of yelps or calls, the syntax still exists, just in a radically different form.

E.g. compare Indonesian and Chinese with Finnish - they all have syntax, but Chinese and Indonesian simply look different on paper (they all still have the same little particles with equivalent meanings though).

For the translation of 'Don't be late' it is not necessary to use 'Esti'- you can say 'Ne venu malfrue'.

On the other hand, 'Estu akurata' seems to be perfectly acceptable as a short for form of 'Vi estu akurata'.

And for 'it's hot in here' the most likely translation would be 'Estas varme ĉi tie'.

Whilst it is customary to use an adverb for the description of a clause eg. 'Estas vere ke li efektive ne sciis la respondon', there can be cases where the use of the adverb, rather than the adjective, potentially creates a double meaning.

In 'Li pensis eble, ke li ne venos' might mean 'it is possible that he thought ...', or 'he thought it possible ...'.

However with 'esti' such an ambiguity cannot arise. and 'Estis eble ke ..' would be the normal form.

I can't find the exact sentences now, but I saw several instances in the book 'Ĉu nur-angla Eŭropo?' where (in my view) the translator quite rightly used an adjective to qualify the 'ke' clause to avoid the interpetation that the main verb was being qualified.

The basic rule, however, is adjectives for explicitly stated (or omitted but obvious) nouns or pronouns, and adverbs in other cases.

In the case of 'it's hot today' what the 'it' stands for is undefined and there is no corresponding noun or pronoun in the Esperanto translation - so 'estas varme'.

'It's hot' referring to something specific would be 'Ĝi estas varma'.

verevie:What is the difference between using esti + an adjective and using esti + an adverb?

I.E. Estu malfrue. and Estu malfrua. seem to mean the same thing.

Esti plus an adverb means that the subject is not clearly defined, as in 'It's late', Estas malfrue. Here the 'it' has no specific meaning. Esti plus an adjective, however means that a clearly defined subject is in mind; Ne estu malfrua means 'Don't (you) be late'.

ceigered:

horsto:

It is what I call “syntactic hijacking” - where the language is determined by the syntax rather than the semantics

I'm really glad that the language is determined by it's syntax, and not by semantics, otherwise you would have to know the meaning of something you read before you read it.

Technically, you still do need to know the meaning of something before you read it, so it's rather even in being driven by both syntax and semantics. In fact, the syntax is irremovable from any language, since syntax means the way words are put together. Even if a language had a single exclamation for every possible situation it needed to describe, like an animal repetoire of yelps or calls, the syntax still exists, just in a radically different form. That i have to

E.g. compare Indonesian and Chinese with Finnish - they all have syntax, but Chinese and Indonesian simply look different on paper (they all still have the same little particles with equivalent meanings though).

Thanks for answering. That I have to know the meaning of something before I read it is for me a completely ridiculous concept. The rest of your message is not understandable for me. And to propose to compare Indonesian and Chinese with Finnish, I don't know, are kidding me?

horsto:

ceigered:

horsto:

It is what I call “syntactic hijacking” - where the language is determined by the syntax rather than the semantics

I'm really glad that the language is determined by it's syntax, and not by semantics, otherwise you would have to know the meaning of something you read before you read it.

Technically, you still do need to know the meaning of something before you read it, so it's rather even in being driven by both syntax and semantics. In fact, the syntax is irremovable from any language, since syntax means the way words are put together. Even if a language had a single exclamation for every possible situation it needed to describe, like an animal repetoire of yelps or calls, the syntax still exists, just in a radically different form. That i have to

E.g. compare Indonesian and Chinese with Finnish - they all have syntax, but Chinese and Indonesian simply look different on paper (they all still have the same little particles with equivalent meanings though).

Thanks for answering. That I have to know the meaning of something before I read it is for me a completely ridiculous concept. The rest of your message is not understandable for me. And to propose to compare Indonesian and Chinese with Finnish, I don't know, are kidding me?

I hope I didn't create a misunderstanding here, that wasn't necessary directed at you (more at rlsinclair's comments, but even then not very directed at all, more a general comment of mine for those going "... wha-?"), I just CIT'd your comments because that was the discussion I wished to add to. (I say this because I can't tell if you're responding normally to me or sarcastically ).

The "Chinese and Indonesian vs. Finnish" wasn't intended for you but for those wishing to argue that EO is driven more by syntax/semantics than it is driven by semantics/syntax.

Either way, I get the feeling you may have taken my post as being directed to you and too literally, in which case I apologise, I was tired when I posted it